ADDRESSES OF JOURNALISTIC SPEECHES

There is a social, professional, and now in domestic journalism and a pronounced commercial need to study the audience for which the press, radio and television work. The study of reader's priorities is directly related to the popularity of the media, with its circulation and income. In the West, the owners and managers of the media have long understood that there is a direct relationship between editorial income and its research activity. Although sometimes very little depends on a particular reader, listener and viewer, public opinion services attach great importance to them. We also conduct regular research of the audience on the basis of scientific methods, but at all times sociological work in journalism has sinned with one-sidedness. In previous years, the journalistic corps, the composition and organization of editorial offices were especially actively studied. Now there is a need to more fully explore the audience.

Many tasks and duties of editors in the national school of journalism were derived from the organizational function of the media. Acting on the consciousness of its audience, journalism thereby forms ideals, specific goals, aspirations, motives of activity, attitudes, and volitional impulses. Until the 1990s, it was believed that the organizing activity of journalism was particularly active in the spread of production initiatives and initiatives and models of advanced labor. The press acted as a coordinator of socialist competition. However, the narrowness of the political interpretation of its organizational role, encountered in practice, led to a direct dependence of the press on the administrative-command system. As a result, communication has largely turned into a straight line: directives were sent from above to directives, and from below — through editors — complaints and requests were sent. Editorial offices became a forwarding point in correspondence between citizens and the management system.

At present, the view on editorial organizational efforts should be radically changed. The journalistic team connects representatives of different sectors of society, establishes a connection between them and helps the authorities to hear them. The legislation on the press enshrines the regulatory framework for media relations with social institutions and individuals.

The results of journalistic work are texts - from a single note to the number of a newspaper and broadcast program. These products go through communication channels to a mass audience, groups, organizations and officials, individual citizens. Each performance has some implications. This may be the reaction of the individual reader, listener, viewer, the so-called official or the whole institution.

Editorial teams continue to classify all sorts of organizations and institutions among the main addressees of publications because, knowing the opinion of the public, government bodies will be better able to carry out their policy, supervisory and advisory tasks. Additional forms of cooperation with them include thematic reviews of mail, analytical information on letters, suggestions based on studying the interests and wishes of readers, which the editors are preparing for government, as well as sending particularly sharp signals from citizens. When the addressees are organizations, groups and officials, a reaction is expected of the type: “measures taken”, “measures not taken”, “measures insufficient”. However, such reports are not always received by the current media. Officials respond to criticism first when it is necessary to protect the honor of the uniform. The recognition of the need to eliminate shortcomings, unfortunately, is replaced by formal replies, excuses, searches for valid reasons. The domestic press has a useful experience of connecting a journalist to the preparation of an official response: the editorial staff, together with an official, studies information and helps to understand the essence of the matter. This practice is especially characteristic of regional publications, where the organizing work of a journalist has always been considered a professional duty.

Despite pessimistic forecasts about the development of the press, at the end of the 1990s, regional and local media retained the overwhelming majority of their readers. Due to what? Largely due to communication with a mass audience. A feature of this type of publications is close communication between people, the proximity of the journalistic team to the production and personal life of the population. The reader of regional newspapers thinks practical and expects the editorial board to provide concrete help in professional and family affairs, study and entertainment. The current regional press has studied these requests well and, to the extent possible, satisfies them quite well. Equally important is the popularity of the presentation and the opportunity for the reader to share his thoughts, his own experience, to find a companion.

In post-perestroika journalism, there was a time when the readers began to set the tone not so much for the editorial teams. Journalists could only support these initiatives. In the early 1990s, reports from the field were actively published as collections. Popular were, for example, the headings "Thoughts on the most vital" ("Truth"), "Letter is not for print" ("News"), "Every day at this place" ("Komsomolskaya Pravda"). The “Acute signal”, “Reader informs”, “Point of view”, “We invite you to talk”, “Feedback” and the like categories have become widely spread. Thus, the desire of citizens to participate in the changes taking place in society was manifested.

By the end of the decade, the nature of public relations with editorial offices has changed dramatically. First, many media outlets began to be made exclusively by the hands of the journalists working for them. The reader, the listener, the viewer with his opinion was strongly pressed and limited. Secondly, the population was not convinced that it was possible to influence the decisions of the authorities. Third, his interests have changed - in particular, people have recoiled from politics. Thus, for officials, a mass audience and individual citizens, opportunities for engaging in dialogue through the press have been narrowed. Both in Russia and in Belarus there are special decrees of the presidents, obliging the authorities to respond to critical press speeches. But they are demonstratively not executed, and there is no force that would force officials to do this. Journalist Journal No. 2, 1999, gave an example of the reporter Igor Korolkov’s repeated addressing in Izvestia about the secret springs of abuse of power in some Russian cities. Facts blatant and disturbing the entire population of these industrial centers. Unfortunately, there was no reaction even to the publication of an influential national publication. The professional duty of journalists is to analyze the decisions of the authorities from the point of view of the public interest. Editorial staff must mobilize public opinion against misconduct of government. Any authority knows that without the support of the media, it will not succeed. But in spite of this truth, instead of collective communication in the line “management system - journalist - audience”, a dialogue in the “editorial - audience” mode often takes place.

An example of a conscious departure from contact with the authorities is seen in an interview with journalist Pavel Sheremet, who was forced to leave Belarus. At the time of the interview, he worked as chief editor of the correspondent network of the Directorate of Information Programs of Public Russian Television:

- Recently, more than once it has been heard that ORT has become softer in assessing the situation in Belarus and more loyal to the Belarusian president. In your opinion, is it so?

- The fact is that not so much depends on the correspondent on the spot: only the creative execution of the report. If the report is well and professionally made, then the chances of it being broadcast are much greater. The general line is determined by the management of the company. I know how the ORT leadership assesses the situation in Belarus, but I would not like to talk about it ... Journalists will not make a revolution for the Belarusian opposition. That's when it starts, then the channels will talk about it. And why from the events of completely dubious suck political sensations?

- Last year was difficult and at the same time successful for you?

- Last year was really a difficult year. It began with a trial, then there was a lot of talk. It was a year of struggle to keep himself in the profession. Year of heavy moral experiences. When I started traveling and reporting from Siberia in the summer, I gradually came to my senses. The Belarusian authorities irritated my reports, but they could not do anything. Having made a written statement, I could travel to the CIS countries. Could not only go to foreign countries. Therefore, at the end of last year I was not allowed to go to New York to receive an international journalistic award. But no one expected that the Americans themselves would come to us. For me, by the way, this was also unexpected. And very enjoyable. Today I know and understand how important and pleasant this is when your work is appreciated not only by the management, but also by your colleagues and, of course, by simple television viewers ... [2]